Deep thought

Based on the Cons' destructive tendencies, it shouldn't be a surprise that we now have a Levantist anti-environmentalist as Environment Minister to join the anti-science Minister for Science and Technology.

Instead, the real shock should be that Rob Anders isn't yet in charge of diplomacy.

On coercion

Dr. Dawg's post on Gary Goodyear's attempt to pressure the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) into pulling funding for a conference on the Middle East is definitely worth a read.

But it's worth noting that what Goodyear apparently did may actually be worse in some ways than those in the other incidents mentioned by Dr. Dawg. As ugly as the actions of Maurice Duplessis (in denying a liquor license to a restauranteur based on his support for Jehovah's Witnesses in several legal proceedings) and Lawrence Cannon (in declaring that he's entitled to withhold consular services based solely on his personal whims) may have been, they seem somewhat different in that they represent efforts to reach final judgment on matters involving private citizens (albeit by ministerial fiat).

In contrast, Goodyear looks to have gone a step further by actually using his arbitrary exercise of discretion to try to blackmail an independent public agency into his preferred course of action. From my standpoint, that roughly mirrors the difference between theft (of rights rather than property) and extortion - in that the latter involved a coercive effect on the other party's actions as well as a loss of what's taken. And while both are obviously serious issues, the latter seems far more likely to create a self-perpetuating cycle of abuse.

(Edit: fixed typo.)

Theatre of the absurd

Sure, the Cons may not have actually accomplished anything useful during their time in office. But one has to give them credit for pushing the boundaries of politics as purely as a matter of stage management rather than actual governance - and it looks like they're setting another new low in that department:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is expected to present a rosy picture of his Conservative government's handling of the recession Thursday in a slick made-for-TV presentation designed to forestall a quick summer election.
...
The presentation will be moderated by Senator Mike Duffy, a former television journalist, and feature Harper, flanked by Human Resources Minister Diane Finley and Gary Goodyear, the local MP and Minister of State for Science. It will include a staged interview segment between Harper and Duffy.

That's right: a Con hack "moderator" will not only get to conduct something designed to look like a panel discussion rather than the Con infomercial it's sure be in terms of content, but will also get to hearken back to his career in journalism without the work of doing anything but asking exactly the questions which Stephen Harper has had scripted for his own political benefit. And rather than being embarrassed about that fact, the Cons apparently see that format as more deserving of advance press than the content of their report - which can only speak volumes about how little they can even pretend to have accomplished in substance.

(Edit: fixed wording.)

Who says photo ops aren't enough?

Aaron Wherry picks up on a truly instructive moment from today's question period, as one of the Cons' cabinet ministers apparently thinks it's a compliment to be told his government has done nothing but try to claim attention for itself:

Kennedy tried again. “Mr. Speaker, it was the Finance Minister, on January 27, who said it was absolutely essential to get the projects going and the money flowing within 120 days; four months,” he shot back. “The deadline has come and gone, and all Canadians have to show for it are photo ops with Conservative ministers.”

Across the way, Gary Goodyear started to clap, then, finding himself alone in this regard, thought better of it.

In fairness...

Sure, Gary Goodyear's refusal to discuss his views about evolution because they make for a "question about his religion" might make it look like the federal minister responsible for science is ignoring a century and a half of development under his file in favour of fundamentalist beliefs.

But isn't it equally possible that the Cons are just test-driving a freedom-of-religion argument that they can use to avoid all types of inconvenient question, as their Cult of Harper doesn't believe in poor optics of any kind?

Garbage in, garbage out

Con MP Gary Goodyear's meltdown story has been discussed elsewhere since it came to light this morning. But nobody seems to have yet picked up on a couple of consistent themes from Goodyear which hint at problems far beyond the single incident with representatives from the Canadian Association of University Teachers:

The screaming erupted last Wednesday afternoon, just down the street from Parliament Hill, in the offices of a Conservative cabinet minister.

Two officials with Canadian Association of University Teachers sat on one side of a boardroom table and on the other sat Gary Goodyear, Minister of Science and Technology, his policy adviser Wesley Moore and a civil servant ready to take notes.

CAUT, a lobby group that represents 65,000 staff at 121 colleges and universities, had planned to raise concerns over the government's handling of research funding. But within moments, it became clear they wouldn't get very far.

“The minister was very angry,” said David Robinson, associate executive director of CAUT. “He was raising his voice and pointing his finger … He said everyone loves their [federal budget] and we said, ‘A lot of our members don't love it'… and he said, ‘That's because you're lying to them, misleading them.'”
...
Mr. Goodyear said he has met university presidents, deans of research, and researchers themselves and believes government critics are few. “You're going to see that one person who didn't get what they wanted,” he said. But “eight out of 10 folks I talk to get it … they are very positive.”

Mr. Goodyear, a chiropractor from Cambridge, Ont., said the government has been steadily investing in science and technology since 2006, with a new emphasis on commercialization and that it has designed an overall strategy to ensure Canada remains a world leader in research.

“We have done everything right,” he said.
...
CAUT, however, is less confident. It was the position of researchers fretting for the future the lobby group hoped to represent at last week's meeting with Mr. Goodyear.

They had barely begun to state their case, Mr. Robinson said, when the minister accused them of twisting facts.

When CAUT staff said the Conservatives have a spotty record on science and noted they abolished the office of the national science adviser, Mr. Robinson said, the minister's assistant screamed at them to shut up.

“Then the minister said, ‘You've burned all your bridges with us!' and they stormed out.

“In all the meetings I've been in like this, I've never been shouted at and told to shut up,” Mr. Robinson said. The civil servant who escorted them to the elevator suggested it would not even be a good idea to return to the minister's office to collect their coats, he said. Instead, she retrieved them.

Now, my first reaction in seeing the Globe and Mail article excerpted was to figure that CAUT's take must have been at least somewhat exaggerated: surely even the most Kool-Aid-addled Conbot couldn't honestly believe that "everyone loves their [federal budget]", and that the opposite position could only be the result of lies and misinformation.

But if anything, Goodyear's remarks after the fact sound even more self-congratulatory and reality-averse than his position during the CAUT meeting. While at least allowing for the fact that support for the Cons is slightly less than unanimous, Goodyear's response - even having had time to reflect on the CAUT incident - was to claim that "we have done everything right". Which would seem to be the type of absolutist position that could only exist based on a combination of belief in the Cons' infallibility, and a lack of curiosity to try to determine how his department could function better.

And that may also go a long way toward explaining a gap between actual perceptions and those which find their way to Goodyear. After all, if criticism of the Cons' policy gives rise to reactions like the one CAUT received, then it's remarkable if even one in five people meeting with Goodyear dares to speak out rather than patronizing the Cons by pretending to agree more than they do.

Which would tend to suggest that the cabinet minister responsible for research and development is not only downright hostile to reality, but also on the receiving end of a highly selective set of information about how groups actually perceive his government's actions. And that combination looks to cause far more problems for Goodyear's ability to function in cabinet than a single temper tantrum.

Deep thought

It shouldn't come as a surprise that MPs promoted to cabinet solely for their willingness to spout talking points in the face of reality may sorely lack any ability to deal with their responsibilities.